xlor82 wrote:As usual, Littwin takes any chance to misrepresent the conservative side of issues while he pushes for his socialist bent driving-us-to-bankruptcy Messiah. Nobody on the Republican ticket is looking to outlaw contraception. Nobody. ... Littwin has zero credibility.

I read several of the articles you linked to, and bottom line, they both agreed with Littwin that a. Paul couldn't win the nomination of his own party, and b. Even Ron Paul himself KNOWS this. Are YOU reading what you're linking to? All of it? Or only the part up until you see what you want to see there? I think your vision is quite filtered.

Ron Paul has some interesting ideas in the area of foreign policy and reform of the Federal Reserve. But he's no economist. He's a Doctor. And you say you vehemently disagree with him on his anti-abortion stand? That should be your signature issue then, because the NEXT president will likely appoint TWO Supremes, and one of them will be to replace Kennedy, the other Ginsberg (she's been fighting cancer now for a while) If 'vehemently' is an accurate portrayal of your belief in a women's right to choose, then Paul isn't the right candidate, especially not now with the court so close to tipping it's balance against Roe v. Wade. Losing the swing vote and a dedicated defender of Roe v. Wade to an anti-choice President is a complete non-starter in my book.

Take the blinders off, please. You can be a passionate supporter of Paul's ideas about the way the US should behave in the world, but realize his limitations for both elect-ability AND suitability to sit in the oval office. Well, you can be whatever you want, you're entitled to your opinions. Convincing any of the rest of us that they are facts is another matter.

It is more than curious that the Virginia mandatory ultra-sound law has not been prominently reported in the Post. Actually, I haven't seen it mentioned. This raises some serious questions about the paper's editorial processes.

Are there any female editors an the paper who cover politics, healthcare or law?

How much influence does William Dean Singleton have on the editors?

The reason I ask is that the Virginia ultra-sound law and the upcoming "personhood" law are vote killing abominations for the Republican party.

The "personhood" bill is little more than political posturing, as no court is going to uphold such an idiotic legal definition of a human being.

But the vaginal-probe ultra-sound law is an outrageous and odious violation of a woman's body and integrity. Think about it, women will be forced to submit to vaginal penetration that has no medical purpose.

This law implicates my questions about the editors because a full airing of the issue can only damage the Republican brand; leaving this story in the background is a huge favor to Republicans.

First, hard core right-to-lifers notwithstanding, the law is profoundly offensive to women, far more so than any other reproductive health law we've ever seen. As has been noted elsewhere, in any operating legal context forcing a woman to submit to vaginal penetration that is both unwanted and (in this context) medically unnecessary is the definition of rape. And make no mistake, if enacted and implemented (courts are never going to let this law be implemented), women forced to undergo the procedure will feel they have been raped, indeed, they will have been raped, by the state that is charged with protecting them.

This leads to the second problem this law creates for Republicans in general, and Rick Santorum in particular. The essential, the foundational claim Republicans make to distinguish themselves from Democrats, is that they want to reduce government size and power, to get government off people's backs and out of their lives.

No Republican, especially one up for reelection in 2012, is going to stand up and declaim these laws, at least in the primary season. Essentially, every Republican in the country now has a sign on his back that says "Kick Me, I'm a Shameless Hypocrite."

So, somebody tell me, why isn't the Post covering this story on the front page where it belongs in an election year? Do they not care at all about the integrity of womens' bodies? Are they all men? Have they no wives or daughters? Or do they assume none of theirs will ever be in a position to need an abortion?

Liberal media? A reflexive excuse for conservatives to ignore information that contradicts their myopic world view.

aabbcc wrote:Littwin is a far left liberal....how can a liberal comment without bias on a conservative's history and positions? The same can be said about a conservative trying to explain a liberal without bias. Take opions for what they are worth considering the author's political alignment. A good rule to follow -- believe less than 1% of what you only hear, 0% of what your read in the media and about 30% of what you witness first hand. Have your own nonbiased opinion, based on your values and research.

If you believe that 70% of what you witness first hand is not believable, you should seriously consider cutting back on the LSD.

Les F- I suppose you would believe an elephant disappeared into thin air or the Eiffle Tower dissapeared in thin air if you witnessed the magician act. Who's on LSD my friend? Face reality. It all based on perception. People believe what they want to believe and often times it is not reality.

paperboy60657 wrote:It is more than curious that the Virginia mandatory ultra-sound law has not been prominently reported in the Post. Actually, I haven't seen it mentioned. This raises some serious questions about the paper's editorial processes.

Are there any female editors an the paper who cover politics, healthcare or law?

How much influence does William Dean Singleton have on the editors?

The reason I ask is that the Virginia ultra-sound law and the upcoming "personhood" law are vote killing abominations for the Republican party.

The "personhood" bill is little more than political posturing, as no court is going to uphold such an idiotic legal definition of a human being.

But the vaginal-probe ultra-sound law is an outrageous and odious violation of a woman's body and integrity. Think about it, women will be forced to submit to vaginal penetration that has no medical purpose.

This law implicates my questions about the editors because a full airing of the issue can only damage the Republican brand; leaving this story in the background is a huge favor to Republicans.

First, hard core right-to-lifers notwithstanding, the law is profoundly offensive to women, far more so than any other reproductive health law we've ever seen. As has been noted elsewhere, in any operating legal context forcing a woman to submit to vaginal penetration that is both unwanted and (in this context) medically unnecessary is the definition of rape. And make no mistake, if enacted and implemented (courts are never going to let this law be implemented), women forced to undergo the procedure will feel they have been raped, indeed, they will have been raped, by the state that is charged with protecting them.

This leads to the second problem this law creates for Republicans in general, and Rick Santorum in particular. The essential, the foundational claim Republicans make to distinguish themselves from Democrats, is that they want to reduce government size and power, to get government off people's backs and out of their lives.

No Republican, especially one up for reelection in 2012, is going to stand up and declaim these laws, at least in the primary season. Essentially, every Republican in the country now has a sign on his back that says "Kick Me, I'm a Shameless Hypocrite."

So, somebody tell me, why isn't the Post covering this story on the front page where it belongs in an election year? Do they not care at all about the integrity of womens' bodies? Are they all men? Have they no wives or daughters? Or do they assume none of theirs will ever be in a position to need an abortion?

Remove Mike Littwin, whose function on the Denver Post is that of bipartisan fig leaf, and you have a profoundly, even radically conservative-libertarian newspaper.

aabbcc wrote:Littwin is a far left liberal....how can a liberal comment without bias on a conservative's history and positions? The same can be said about a conservative trying to explain a liberal without bias. Take opions for what they are worth considering the author's political alignment. A good rule to follow -- believe less than 1% of what you only hear, 0% of what your read in the media and about 30% of what you witness first hand. Have your own nonbiased opinion, based on your values and research.

What "research" and "values" led you to believe Littwin is a "far left liberal"?

The battle to be the biggest loser continues. People thought Obama was bad, then the Republicans decide to give us a bunch of pathetic candidates with no leadership qualities. It is not that hard to come up with a deficit reduction plan and talk about it. Republican insiders can't figure out why people won't vote for their chosen candidate of Romney. The answer is simple. Romney is a rich banker who made his money killing jobs and stealing pensions, got bailed out by Bush Jr, does not pay much in taxes, and lacks charisma. Romney is running because he dad ran before him and lost. Even though I have my policy disagreements with Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul, like most voters I will pick any of them over Romney every day of the week. I will wait to hear what they and Obama have to say over the next 7 months and then decide in autumn who I will vote for.

You implied it with this remark, "who has some peculiar ideas about our sex lives." Meaning that Santorum as President would inject himself into our sex lives. Santorum has not implied any such agenda and has only made clear his personal beliefs and convictions. You and the rest of the left are currently trumpeting the idea that the Catholic church is all about removing contraceptives from daily life in America when nothing could be further from the truth.

Saying that Santorum has weird ideas about sex implies that I'm saying he wants to ban contraception? I'd call that a slight stretch. If I said you had weird ideas about implication, would you think I meant you wanted to ban writing?